United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology Start‑class

Novus ordo seclorum is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

What evidence us there that Novus Ordo Seclorum is motto of Freemasonry. I seriously doubt this in light of the information I found and posted on the Eye of Providence discussion page. Loremaster 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

present your evidence here.

Anyone have source for this: "Medieval Christians read in Virgil's poem a prophecy of the coming of Christianity." Thx. Nobs 21:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick [1]. It's pretty standard, and is the the basis of the Divine Comedy. -- Decumanus 21:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Ok, here is the explanation coming from someone who has studies latin for three years. seclorum is in the genitive case, plural form. the genitive case is used for the possessive form of a word, therefore, novus ordo seclorum can't mean "new order for the ages" or "new secular order" because each would require a different case, i.e. not the genetive. Furthermore, the latin word seclorum does not translate to "secular", despite the resemblance. It translates to "of the centuries", of the "generations", or "of the ages". Bonus Onus July 9, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

That is academic, and of an earlier period of Latin. It is clear that to the foudning fathers it meant "secular", because by that time the word meant secular even in Latin works, and the word "secular" was derived directly from it !

• I'll buy that for a dollar. Good edit, BO. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

This was on the article page, but really belongs here:

Possible correction:

Quoted from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:

secular

ORIGIN - ME (Middle English): senses 1 and 2 from OFr. (Old French) seculer, from L. (Latin) saecularis, from saeculum 'generation', used in Christian L. to mean 'the world'; senses 3, 4, and 5 from L. (Latin) saecularis 'relating to an age or period'.

Therefore, they are indeed all related, so it is not merely an assumption that seclorum has secular in it's meaning.

But it does not mean "secular" in classical Latin. See Lewis and Short. I see this unfact has come back from answers.com, which is a mirror of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com. Septentrionalis 00:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "By circumscribing the 6 pointed Star of David over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point to the letters spelling M-A-S-O-N. (disputed — see talk page)". What part is being disputed, and based on what evidence? If someone doesn't answer soon, I'll remove the disputed tag. Superm401 | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the pointing. A six-pointed star points near, but not at the letters; in fact, most of the points miss the letters entirely. Look at a dollar bill if you have one to hand. Also (thank you for reminding me) the order of the letters. Septentrionalis 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless one points to a notable third-party description of this conspiracy, which asserts its notability, this stuff must be deleted. mikka (t) 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the existence of the theory should be mentioned, whatever its factuality; as long as it is clearly separated from the consensus parts of the article. After all, we describe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no evidence that the Tetragrammaton is 72-fold. If anything, it is fourfold. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:Tetragrammaton-Tetractys.png. AnonMoos 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There also those who believe that the freemasons were influenced by an ancient brotherhood from the time of Galileo called the Illuminati. The eye over the pyramid is said to be the eye of illumination. References to "New World Order" for the translation of NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM also point to an Illuminati influence in the early freemasons.

The connection between Galileo and the Illuminati appears to be Dan Brown's invention in Angels and Demons, I do not recall novus ordo seclorum coming into the novel. (It would be implausible; Weishaupt knew Latin, he would not have mistranslated it.) Please supply source. Septentrionalis 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed unnoticed for quite a long time; though the article states [t]hese theorists assert that the word should be spelt secolorum, and the alleged first o is omitted for occult reasons, the actual term in latin is saeculus (or seculus), -i; the correct form would be seculorum. Taragüí @ 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as the article says, when discussing actual Latin, rather than conspiracy theorists: "Latin prose would normally spell the word saeculorum". Septentrionalis 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, I believe it is customary to add a (sic) notice to the oddly-spelled text. Taragüí @ 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is certainly odd, as Thompson (Thomson?) was a Latin teacher. Given the obvious presence of secret society symbols(Pyramid/Eye) on the dollar bill/Great Seal it is naive to simply swallow the official explanation of the other bits. A hidden alternate meaning is the very stuff of the secret society mentality. The plausibility of theories can be discussed, but to remove them would be inappropriate. --Starlight1955 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article states, "The scholar mistranslates the phrase to "New Secular Order", with no indication that it was a mistranslation in the story, despite the author's claim in a foreword that the information in the story is completely accurate." In the book I have, the forward states that "references to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and atchitecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today." It doesn't say that everything in the book is 'completely accurate." Obviously, as a work of fiction, there are creative licenses, but this sentence suggests that the author believes the book to be entirely fact when Mr. Brown has stated on his web site (and in many interviews) that "each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations." http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html --66.30.84.242 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that New Secular Order is a correct translation. I wouldn't translate Novus Ordo Mundi to what people believe to be the New World Order. Mundi is something physical, such as dirt or Earth, when secular is worldly as opposed to holy. If there were a grand conspiracy, they would control the people of the world, and not the dirt; they also wouldn't want you to translate your own Latin.—Slipgrid 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH HA! Latin isn't commonly taught in schools today ... they don't want you to translate your own latin. Which must be PROOF of the conspiracy. They don't want you to know! Damn those Masono-communist Illuminati Anti-Christian Democrats and their conspiracy of seclorism!... now where did I put my tin foil hat. Blueboar 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (obviously just kidding folks)[reply]

>>>>Although latin isn't teached in school regulary, everybody is able to buy a latin dictionary and to translate. So Blueboar, smooth down.

>>>>The latin word for world: there is more than mundi: orbi, terrarum, etc. the word saeclorum can mean time, generation, age, BUT ALSO WORLD. You can find it in every good latin dictionary.

See a pretty good Latin dictionary here: That sense is Christian, ecclesiastical, and Vulgar Latin; indeed the first citation is Jerome. Reading that sense into Vergil is an anachronism; asserting that a group of enlightened eighteenth century minds did so is preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin isn't that good, or I'd fix it myself, but I'm sure that the translation of Virgil's Eclogue does not include anything about the 3 stooges! Could someone help out and fix things?

I see the section on the conspiracy theory has been removed. While I believe no word of these claims, the section did have the advantage of keeping this stuff out of the rest of the article; I hope we don't need it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it had no sources or references, not because of what it said. I have no problem with someone returning the information or recreating the section... as long as they include citations to reliable sources when they do so. Blueboar 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages of having it were largely tactical; it was a summary of the POV stuff that kept being put in the header, with a few facts mixed in. Although unsourced, I'm sure none of it was OR; someone has said all of it before. But if we don't need it, I shan't miss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the following discussion from the top of the page to the bottom... Note for those who posted: Standard Wikipedia practice is to put new discussion on the bottom of the page... Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( Sorry, I didn't know how to. Satwa)

Seclorum (or saeculorum) does not come from L.L. saecularis as is asserted below; they are two entirely different forms of the word Saeculum. Seclorum, being the nominative plural possessive, means "of the generations," "of the ages," "of the centuries," or if you wish, "of the worlds." Saecularis, being the adjective, means "worldly" or "secular." Thus your citing of the "Secular c. 1290" etc. below is well and good for Saecularis, but has no bearing on Seclorum. Cf. Eric Partridge, A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1963, p. 601: "2. The Go[thic] mana-seths, seed of men, i.e. mankind, hence the world, brings us to L[atin] saeculum, O[ld] L[atin] saeclum, generation ... whence the period of a generation, hence a vaguely longer period, esp a century, finally, in L[ate] L[atin], mankind, the world (of human beings)...3. The derivative L[atin] adj[ective] saecularis takes, in L[ate] L[atin], the sense "worldly, profane," whence ... E[nglish] secular...."

Saecularis, "secular," thus derives from, but differs from, Saeculum, "generation" or "century," and its genitive plural inflection, Seclorum, "of the generations" or "of the centuries." Justme1956 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE:

Above you State: "Seclorum, being the nominative plural possessive, means ...(snip).. "of the worlds." "

Thanks for verifying what I have been saying all along.

The online etymological dictionary states:

"sæculum" can mean "world", "Sæcularis" means "worldy", "secular"

SECULAR: c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular,"...Used in ecclesiastical writing like Gk. aion "of this world" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=secular.

THAT MEANS: "sæcularis" means "worldy", "secular".

Again, the online etymological dictionary states:

"WORLD" "Original sense in "world without end", translating L. sæcula sæculorum, and in worldly. L. sæculum can mean both "age" and "world," as can Gk. aion." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=afterlife

THAT MEANS: "sæculum" can mean "world", "worldly" .

On the main page here on Wikipedia it states: " Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian, Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis"

So, it is most likely that that is the sense that the founders of US meant it.

sec•u•lar- ADJECTIVE: 1.Worldly, rather than spiritual. 2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3.Relating to or advocating secularism. 4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century. 6.Lasting from century to century [2]

And interestingly the word is also related to these: secedo : to go apart, withdraw. secerno secrevi secretum : to separate. seco : secui : sectum : to cut, hurt, wound, amputate, divide, part. securis : axe, hatchet, battle-axe.

ie. separation of religion and state.

Thus the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum can be translated as "The New Secular Order." or perhaps "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.

(Satwa)

No references:

This part of the article needs references or should be stricken:

The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. (needs refences or should be stricken)

Satwa

Since it seems that Satwa does not know how to do it... I have placed a citation request at the sectons he/she mentions needing one. I suppose a citation to Vigil or something is in order. Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation showing that -orum is the genitive plural form of Latin's 2nd declension, hence "of the generations" or "of the ages" or (in a Late Latin stretch, dubious at best because of the source's being from the Classical Latin poet Virgil, and because it doesn't in any event make a lot of sense, unless Virgil and the Founding Fathers were envisioning a United Federation of Planets) "of the worlds" -- but certainly not "worldly" by any stretch:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin2nddecl.htm

Justme1956 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convinces me... but I don't think about.com is considered a reliable source. Perhaps a similar page from a standard Latin text book? (Or, even better, a standard Latin textbook used in the late 1700s so we can show how the founding fathers would have translated it.) Blueboar 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be some reference to this? 76.23.153.173 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) R.E.D.[reply]

For example? We need a citation to put anything in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No user 76.23.153.173, because American Imperialism dosen't exist. Travis Cleveland (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a debatable question... many reliable sources say it does exist. The issue for us, however, is: how is its existance or nonexistance tied to the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum"? Without a citation to a reliable source that discusses such a tie, any discussion about American Imperialism is a non-starter at this article. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guh. Satan is on our dollar without us even realizing it. Yet nobody listens. Anyway, considering what the phrase is, its a good article..... And the translation is quite accurate. I think you all have done a good job on this article, it shouldnt need any more improving. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, that is a debatable question... many reliable sources say it does exist" Quite impossible, as any source which says such a absurd statement would obviously need to revaluate itself. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on you debating it, i would call it a debatable question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon82 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we can debate it all we want here on the talk page... to talk about it in this article requires citations to reliable sources that make a direct connection between the concept and the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (the subject of this article). While we could probably find sources that discuss "American Imperialism", I doubt that any of them tie it to the motto. So it is really a moot point that does not need further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This obsession with Virgil's Latin is a red-herring. Seclorum meant "of the ages" in Roman times, but the real question is what did it mean in the eighteenth century.

The Founding Fathers were very conscious of themselves as establishing a new political order, as opposed to the old political order of monarchy. They were also very conscious of establishing a secular political order, as opposed to the Old World pattern of church-state entanglement. Also, they knew well that "of the ages" (i.e., "within time" or "temporal") had come to mean secular.

They used the old form because quoting Virgil appealed to them, but it is silly to expect that they slavishly followed Virgil's meaning. Why imagine that they were making obscure references to "ages" when a "New Secular Order" was in fact what they were consciously creating?

70.187.212.62 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Dan Holdgreiwe[reply]

Your comments might be worth concidering, were it not for several facts. First, in the 18th century education was heavily focused on studying the classics. Men of that era focussed on exact classical translations, not "modern" meanings. Second, and more to the point, we have the words of the man who added that motto to the seal, telling us what they mean... On June 13, 1782, Congress looked at all the designs the various committees had come up with, and asked Charles Thomson, the Secretary of the Congress to come up with a suitable design for America's Great Seal. Thompson was well-versed in the classics, he was once a Latin master at an academy in Philadelphia. (ie he knew his classics intimately and would have insisted on an accurate classical translation)... He explains the symbolism of the reverse as such:

• The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Æra, which commences from that date. (see this web page for sourcing).

In other words... he was trying to say that America would last through the ages, not that it was trying to set up a secular state. If he had wanted to say "secular" he would have used a different word. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "separation of church and state" wasn't published until a few years after the Constitution was ratified. There is no mention of the idea during the arguments leading up to the Constititution, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was added so the states would be free to establish their own separate state religions without Federal interference. Therefore, because secularism wasn't actually part of the founding documents (in fact, God takes a prominent role in the Declaration of Independence), I seriously doubt that they would promote it on a symbol of the nation. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We say it is both... in the same paragraph. So which is it?

I'm no fascist or revolutionary, but the "New World Order" thing, in a sense, is kind of true. I think that its more like a New World Order rather than a New World Order. Opinions? Sirius85 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]